Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

QOTD: Do You Want True 3D Graphics for Games?

Tags:
  • Graphics
  • Games
  • 3D
Last response: in News comments
Share
March 18, 2009 7:30:58 AM

Both AMD and Nvidia are recently nearly neck to neck in terms of graphics performance. If you are fortunate enough to own a card from either company, you no doubt are able to play the latest games without a problem--especially when you're running in Cro

QOTD: Do You Want True 3D Graphics for Games? : Read more

More about : qotd true graphics games

March 18, 2009 7:43:50 AM

I want a VR helmet that weighs less then an ounce and be wireless, lol. I am not sure glasses and expensive monitors are the wave of the future, but I am often wrong.
Score
5
March 18, 2009 8:00:39 AM

I dont/wont care about 3D. I've tested it, and honestly I'm not extremely excited about it. Factor that in with the extreme price and the clunky annoying glasses, and it rates about a 0.001 on my give a damn-o-meter.
Score
9
Related resources
March 18, 2009 8:30:16 AM

If they can make a light implementation of it, and it works easily and looks great, then sure :D  It would sure bring some new life to games most people don't think of as 3d, like RTSs. I'd like to see support for other applications like AutoCAD as well though. I consider it just as important that it be flexible.
Score
5
March 18, 2009 9:03:08 AM

Has anyone every seen a 3D movie on a 22" monitor? The screen is just too small to make the effects, well..effective. It's like watch a movie through a pipe. For this to work well your gonna need a big screen, like 42" big, and how many gamers have the cash for that.

I'm with Blessedman; light weight, wireless, VR helmets with built in sorround sound are the way to go.
Score
5
March 18, 2009 9:19:47 AM

I had a 42" inch TV hooked up to my PC before I moved to Japan (boy do I ever miss it), but even with that I still wouldn't be too excited about true 3d. As for the glasses, I would be interested to try but ultimately I think they would not be comfortable enough for every day use, and I still have a lot of doubts as to how good they actually are.
Score
4
March 18, 2009 9:34:04 AM

I really don't care about stereo glasses and games and that is not a good thing for your eyes and brain when used too many hours... I guess the bill with healthcare at the ophtalmologist will rise a lot if this massifies!
Score
3
Anonymous
March 18, 2009 9:56:45 AM

Nope. I'll be perfectly happy to go from 2-D images to visual cortex stimulation.
Score
2
March 18, 2009 10:14:13 AM

so far "true 3D" is a waste of time and money. what's the point in running "true 3D" when framerates are almost cut in half. I mean its not like we get 100fps in crysis and we want to see it see it in "true 3D" furthermore you're stuck to the so called gaming monitors who are prices to rip you off. if you want to see it on 40+ inches you're out of luck, because even if a lot of hdtvs out there can do 120hz, they don't support their technology because their 120hz is not "true 120hz" and so the 3D effects will be lost. you'll have to buy a gaming projector for that and well those are not exactly bargains either.. i think ill stop here
Score
1
March 18, 2009 10:14:40 AM

so far "true 3D" is a waste of time and money. what's the point in running "true 3D" when framerates are almost cut in half. I mean its not like we get 100fps in crysis and we want to see it see it in "true 3D" furthermore you're stuck to the so called gaming monitors who are prices to rip you off. if you want to see it on 40+ inches you're out of luck, because even if a lot of hdtvs out there can do 120hz, they don't support their technology because their 120hz is not "true 120hz" and so the 3D effects will be lost. you'll have to buy a gaming projector for that and well those are not exactly bargains either.. i think ill stop here
Score
-3
March 18, 2009 10:27:39 AM

I sure care for it, but from what reviews i have read so far the bad (non-existant) support in games makes it a mediocre experience. The hardware side is catching up (120 Hz monitor is not so expensive, and cards can take the performance hit in a lot of games), so i think this shouldn't be an issue... after all, lotta people ar bound to glasses anyho and they seem to survive
Score
1
Anonymous
March 18, 2009 10:39:52 AM

I think:
1- The simple Red-blue glasses will probably not be the best choice;but there is a variant used with eye doctors that look just like regular sun glasses.
2- Any kind of helmet to play 3D games will absolutely suck wearing it (it'd look goofy,and people these days are very picky on what they put on their head).
3- Any glasses with internal monitor build in will probably lack resolution. Many games are nice when played in at least 1024x720 pix, while many 3D glasses only support 640x480 to 800x600 pix.

Besides, the 3D glasses don't have that large of an appearance of screen;and 3D sun/blue-red glasses probably might pose problems on LCD screens if LCD screens need to display the alternate image (for the other eye) every other frame.
despite having a 1ms lag, I fear some artifacts might not come out nicely with glasses.
Score
4
March 18, 2009 11:06:01 AM

I'm quite excited by the potential to be playing in stereo 3d within a couple of years. However, for that to come to pass, prices on the required technology will need to drop significantly. If in a couple years' time there are good, reasonably priced monitors or flat-panel TVs that support the required refresh rates, I'd be more than willing to invest in the glasses. In all, I think the technology has great potential if the prices come down to a realistic level and there is adequate implementation and support on the software side.
Score
1
March 18, 2009 11:56:52 AM

3D glasses aren't true 3D, and if it's anything like IMAX (which is not bad, just not worth the extra money), then there's no point. It's the developers job to imerse the player in their "3d" environment. Whether it's true 3d or not, it will satisfy the player. For now, my games look so damn good with my 8800gt and 19" samsung that I am very satisfied. So I could care less about 3d glasses.
Score
-2
March 18, 2009 12:15:26 PM

Meh...
Score
0
March 18, 2009 12:24:47 PM

I have the edimensional glasses and used to run games off a 21" CRT. I only bought them to test the technology but the driver issues were nothing short of a nightmare and many a game wouldn't work properly so in the end I stopped using them.
But properly set up and while working well with a game the effect was just about completelly real. The immersive feel blow my mind. So much so that the games that worked well with it started to feel very boring and uninteresting without it. I'm currently reserching what monitor or TV would be best in combination with nvidia's solution and I'm definatelly buying those in the near future but with something considerably bigger than a measly 21" (20 effective) CRT because that size really strained my eyes. Brilliant effect!
Score
2
March 18, 2009 12:28:11 PM

I would take a longer ,better games any day over eye candy.
Score
1
March 18, 2009 12:29:10 PM

The potential is great, but the implementation is not there. Right now D3D movies resort to gimmicks to use the 3d. "oh the giant balls rolling towards me. wow..."

I agree that it'll probably take a true headset to make this work, and it has to make the experience more immersive, and not just be a gimmick, which I think is all it will be.
Score
0
Anonymous
March 18, 2009 12:31:24 PM

Yes, give me 3D. But, I would prefer special HD goggles with the HD screens built in. I would like a wide actual field of view (say over 90 degrees). I would also like the goggles to track head motions -- so I could look around. In other words, I want a virtual world.

I think it is feasible. I would pay a lot ($1000) for that capability if it supported a lot of games.
Score
2
March 18, 2009 12:36:11 PM

Do I want? Yes.

But I don't want to have to wear anything special in order to experience "true" 3d. The technology should work just like watching regular TV.
Score
2
March 18, 2009 12:38:59 PM

ooooo, loooks fun. i wanna try this in dead space!!!! :D 
Score
0
March 18, 2009 12:39:31 PM

I'll wait until Holographic display technology.
Score
0
March 18, 2009 1:05:34 PM

Ok, 1st, its not red/blue lenses in these, its micro-shutter tech - means your refresh rate is cut in half. I, fortuantly, can and have baught a 120HZ TV, but am waiting to build a machine that will actually drive games fast enough to use it. Overall, support for the tech is lackluster atm, but I am sure it will take off. In some games (WoW being one main driver), the 3D effect is actually quite stunning, with dragons seeming to come out of the screen at you. Yes, this tech is pretty much useless on small monitors, 30" an up at LEAST. But games need to be coded for it as well.

So in short, excited? Very. WIlling to drop money in the short term? Yes. Expecting a revolutionary change out of the box? No, not at all. But then, I also dropped money on the OCZ NIA and thats even more obscure in use and scope, so perhaps I'm not a very good example of the average consumer.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
Score
1
March 18, 2009 1:07:30 PM

Convergence and separation must be set correctly for the stereoscopic effect to be evident in games. Correctly configured, the effect is awesome. Incorrectly configured, you will be underwhelmed and wonder what the fuss is about. CONVERGENCE AND SEPARATION MUST BE CONFIGURED CORRECTLY.

I have used stereo3d extensively and I think it adds greatly to the immersion. Try it out, but make sure it is set up correctly before you draw any conclusions about the merits of stereo3d. IMAX movies are a passive experience in comparison to a 3D game in which you can move about and manipulate your environment.
Score
1
March 18, 2009 1:14:20 PM

I'm not worrying about true 3d until they find a way to start using those hologram cubes or the likes for computer monitors. And even then it'd need to have the picture quality improved drastically as well as price and refresh rate would be an issue below a certain level.
Score
0
March 18, 2009 1:14:44 PM

crimsondynamicsDo I want? Yes.But I don't want to have to wear anything special in order to experience "true" 3d. The technology should work just like watching regular TV.


I agree. If we ever develop the technology to have 3D televisions without the extras (glasses, whatever), then people might begin paying attention. Until then most are happy with their HD widescreens.

Spend the money on developing games instead of 3D glasses technology.
Score
0
March 18, 2009 1:17:04 PM

There's a lot of work that needs to be done before they're viable... but the time is coming.

The new lcd shutter tech is getting to the point where the glasses are light enough that they're not annoying anymore... but you still lose half your image intensity, which may be a problem in bright rooms.

Normal game rendering has all the information required to render 3d, but interfaces need to be standardized to eliminate the driver and compatibility problems (nvidia might be a big help there).

Compatible screens can't cost much more than any other screens... it's just not enough of a value add to justify a big price difference.

I've always thought the "Holy Grail" of display tech would be a 3d headset with eye tracking and targeted rendering. We know a lot about how the eye works now, and with precise eye tracking, systems could be designed that render only the information the eye needs. That means lots of detail where you're looking and a lot LESS detail (maybe only rendering edges) near the periphery of your vision. Right now GPU's spend a lot of time rendering detail that's wasted because you're not LOOKING at it.

That would allow game makers to render at quality levels that are an order of magnitude higher than they are today (I suspect it would get us to photorealistic)... without adding any more horsepower.

It could be done with eye tracking glasses and a normal monitor... but would be even better with a high resolution panoramic headset (full wrap around, maybe 2500x1200 res). That would seriously kick ass.

If they could just figure out the niggling details like accurate (and predictive) eye tracking, lightweight ultrahigh res. non-planar displays, and non-uniform (targeted) rendering.

Probably a decade away still... sadly.
Score
1
March 18, 2009 1:42:45 PM

This would be cool if it truly worked.. I would try it if the price was right and the quality was there. Why not make a curved screen like a half moon would be cool. It could give the illusion of being in the game with view of the sides..
Score
1
March 18, 2009 1:45:40 PM

How many of you guys complaining about this have actually tried it? i played Left4Dead for a few hours at my friends house and that game KICKS ASS in 3d. He is got a Q9550+GTX260 and it runs like butter. If they could get all games to play as well as this one title does, I would definitely throw down the money for a system to play 3d.
Score
2
March 18, 2009 1:50:55 PM

I really rally want to get some of these...unfourtunately the monitors are only in size 22" and I have a 28" so it would be a major step-back, but once high Hz monitors or even big LCDs become standard, I'm deffinitely gettin me a pair of these. You can actually test out what it would look like if you google cross-eyed pictures of the game you want to play. I'f you can cross you eyes than you can see certain pictures that are made for cross-eyed view in 3D on a simple 2D screen!!!
Score
1
March 18, 2009 1:55:15 PM

Man the price just killed it for me...
Score
0
Anonymous
March 18, 2009 1:59:41 PM

I currently use this setup and it is nothing short of amazing. It does take some education and getting used to, however. Without the correct depth and convergence settings, it's easy to understand how someone could get turned off of the technology. Left 4 Dead and WoW are great on this! Hopefully Nvidia sets up some store kiosks so people can actually experience stereoscopic 3D. Unless you've experienced it properly set up, you don't know what you're missing!
Score
3
March 18, 2009 2:07:30 PM

It's going to be the "next frontier" and as technology advances we might see more of it as long as it's accessible for the average user. I know I would love it, but refuse to wear glasses etc..

I light of recent horror news, however, I am a bit concerned about too much realism in violent games ... potentially reducing the natural inhibitions by training the mind to think of it as normal. Games like that don't make killers but they train fragile minds potentially the wrong way.

Jump all over me if you like, but cartoon violence is easy to differentiate from daily life while hyper realism isn't much different from being exposed to the real thing. Ultimately it won't shock you anymore. Just look at how many people claim that the movie SAW aren't scary! Well they should be as they depict horror in a very detailed manner. Being "immune" to it is a rather worrisome trend.

I know, off topic a bit, that's what came to mind. Regardless, i would love 3D used in a reasonable way.
Score
0
March 18, 2009 2:09:52 PM

It's going to be the "next frontier" and as technology advances we might see more of it as long as it's accessible for the average user. I know I would love it, but refuse to wear glasses etc..

I light of recent horror news, however, I am a bit concerned about too much realism in violent games ... potentially reducing the natural inhibitions by training the mind to think of it as normal. Games like that don't make killers but they train fragile minds potentially the wrong way.

Jump all over me if you like, but cartoon violence is easy to differentiate from daily life while hyper realism isn't much different from being exposed to the real thing. Ultimately it won't shock you anymore. Just look at how many people claim that the movie SAW aren't scary! Well they should be as they depict horror in a very detailed manner. Being "immune" to it is a rather worrisome trend.

I know, off topic a bit, that's what came to mind. Regardless, i would love 3D used in a reasonable way.
Score
0
March 18, 2009 2:14:31 PM

I think the two biggest factors to make this technology useful would be:

1) LCD Projector or 30" monitor
2) Professional Quality Optics

Factor number one would provide a greater degree of immersion into the scene. Both LCD Projector and 30" screens would be far too expensive to provide the specs and refresh rate in order to sync with the signal. Maybe in the next year this technology would become available...but at what price?

Factor number two. Partnering with a professional quality optics supplier like Oakley would be beneficial in providing the necessary optics standards that should be mandatory for quality control. I have done laser tests with Oakley sunglasses compared to other more expensive brands and it was amazing to actually see how inaccurate other expensive brands are. If you have ever had a headache in the sun after a few hours and you aren't wearing quality eyewear it is probably your sunglasses. If you are going to sit in one spot making your eyes work all day you better have a good set of eyewear or you are going to screw with your eyes or get a really good headache in the process.

Disclaimer: I have no idea how good the quality is on the nVidia polarized shades they include in this package so I cannot say whether or not they would pass the divergent laser test. If they could not be as accurate as what Oakley optics could provide...I would not buy them.

Score
0
March 18, 2009 2:16:50 PM

If you haven't tried it YOU JUST DON"T KNOW.
I have the Nvidia glass and use 2 8800 GTS 512 mb cards to run it on the 120 hz samsung monitor. I.d have to say that when the 3d is working well, it is truly AMAZING. MASS EFFECT in 3d is beyond belief! The biggest problem is that most games aren't made for 3d glass. This cause some incompatibilities that can be annoying, but in the games where it does work, well it is awesome.
I've been very skeptical of 3d (the whole paper glasses thing never worked for me) and my friend had the previous generation of 3d glass from Nvidia back in 2000!? Anyway, they didn't work very well, but these do.
The glass are fairly comfortable, and fit around my prescription glass also. Better to wear contacts though. As for eye strain, I didn't experience any with this setup, but did with the previous generation glasses. So that problem seems to be fixed.

Problems: I get a little ghosting, especially when there is a white light next to black. I thought this had to do with the response time of the monitor, but some forums lead me to believe this problem is less pronounced with the GT200 series of cards. I really don't know why though. It could be my framerates are dropping below 120. I haven't installed fraps to check it.
The glass only work with windows VISTA. Since I don't have vista, I installed windows 7 64 bit. This operating system seems to be unstable with many of my games, and was made worse with the installation of the 3d software. For some reason, toggling 3d on and off seems to make the system completely hang.

conclusion: If the next generation of games is optimized for true 3d, and 120hz monitors become normal(why wouldn't they, I mean I would have bought the monitor anyway for my FPS), then this technology will be the next BIG thing. It is more impressive than physics, but should be awesome with physics combined. Although I haven't played left for dead, I've heard this tech is awesome in that game also, but try Mass Effect, you won't be disappointed.
Score
1
March 18, 2009 2:23:09 PM

I tried the glasses out at Fry's Electronics and thought it was pretty kool. If it was more affordable I would support it.
Score
2
March 18, 2009 2:26:00 PM

"I really rally want to get some of these...unfourtunately the monitors are only in size 22" and I have a 28" so it would be a major step-back, but once high Hz monitors or even big LCDs become standard, I'm deffinitely gettin me a pair of these."

Hey Gellert, I too had a 27" monitor before and was thinking the same thing. But once I tried it(3d) I chucked it to the side. The feeling of immersion is so much STRONGER in 3D that the 22" is good enough.
However, IZ3D has a 26" monitor coming out in summer or fall and it uses polarized glasses, so you don't need to worry about connecting a usb device and charging your glasses. However I understand there drivers aren't quite as developed as the Nvidia ones yet. But by the time the 26" arives, they should be there. Also, this tech works with both ATI and Nvidia cards and is cheaper as you only buy the monitor.

Score
0
March 18, 2009 2:27:38 PM

YES! I want to look as geeky as humanly possible and this would go a long way towards meeting that goal.
Score
0
March 18, 2009 2:32:36 PM

Hey Tom'S, why don't you guys do a side by side comparision of the 2 3D technologies. The one from IZ3D and the Nvidia 3D. See which is easier to set up and use. Check using different graphics cards for Ghosting effects etc. Which version offers the MAXIMUM immersion. Etc. IZ3D is definately Cheaper and may sway many people to try 3D out. The problem with marketing 3D is that you have to see it to believe it, and they can't effectively advertise what they can't show you. Plus, decades of bad 3D have put a stain on the industry.
Maybe James Cameron will start the ball rolling with Avatar.
Score
1
March 18, 2009 2:36:24 PM

3D graphics are most likely the future in Computer gaming. The Wii has already upped the ante with its 1 to 1 motion capabilities.(Im talking about Wii Motion Plus, which is bad a$$) However, after reading on the 3D gaming market, you must have a monitor that outputs 120hz?! So let me get this straight, I would have to drop $500+ to get a new monitor, not to mention the 3D technology, and MOST likely a new GPU. Totally not even close to worth it. I have a better idea, why doesnt Nvidia and ATI find ways to make their newer GPUs cheaper instead of screwing around with 3D technology!? Listen up NVIDIA, this is a gimic, in todays economy Im more apt to drop $200 on a new 260 or 280 than 3D technology which would require more than what it is worth. This thing has failure written all over it.
Score
0
March 18, 2009 2:37:44 PM

English 101:
The phrase is "couldn't care less" not "could care less".
Apart from being wrong, the latter just doesn't make any sense.
Score
0
March 18, 2009 3:03:27 PM

Thanks Enterfrize,

That was interesting.
Score
0
March 18, 2009 3:04:01 PM

i would like something to this effect, if its affordable. I havn't tried anything 3D yet, so i can't really comment.

***BUT, a more significant issue for me is the lack of PC support for quality games, period. I've spent some big bucks building two gaming PC's, and other than a few games like Crysis and HL2, most games are just dumbed down console ports. Sub par 'PC' 3d graphics, awkward controls (try Dead Space?), annoying console style menus.

I won't be spending ***ANY*** money on hardware if we're only getting 1 or 2 true PC titles per year. I'll wait for the xbox 720 release instead perhaps.



Score
-1
March 18, 2009 3:30:58 PM

zambutui would like something to this effect, if its affordable. I havn't tried anything 3D yet, so i can't really comment. ***BUT, a more significant issue for me is the lack of PC support for quality games, period. I've spent some big bucks building two gaming PC's, and other than a few games like Crysis and HL2, most games are just dumbed down console ports.


Valid concern... though usually the console ports play much better on the PC. Dead Space was a great game, but I agree it would have been MUCH better if they'd simply added a proper mouse interface. DS was IMO the exception though not the rule. In general, FPS games are far better on PC's (because they normally fix the crappy control problem)... and that alone makes a hot PC worth the price.

Then there's games like L4D, that game would be impossible on a console (unless they made it a WHOLE LOT easier)... but it's outstanding on a PC. Bioshock, Oblivion, all the MMO games... the list goes on. Since I finally updated my PC last fall I've not bought a single 360 game and only two PS3 games (and at least 6 PC games).

The COD series seems to be able to manage it (though I wasn't impressed with CODWAW... a little TOO console-y).

Score
-1
March 18, 2009 3:36:57 PM

If the screen would be about the size of my wall, and I could have a direct interface with the 3D enviroment, ala VR, Minority Report, Babylon 5, Star Trek, than sure. This would make CAD work great. I see little use for it in any other place, and certainly not worth much more than a minimal price premium.
Score
0
March 18, 2009 3:43:39 PM

So How about it Tom's Hardware.

Hey Tom'S, why don't you guys do a side by side comparision of the 2 3D technologies. The one from IZ3D and the Nvidia 3D. See which is easier to set up and use. Check using different graphics cards for Ghosting effects etc. Which version offers the MAXIMUM immersion.
Score
1
Anonymous
March 18, 2009 4:20:32 PM

I had these years ago with one of my geforce cards and they were awesome! Im sure there much better today.
Score
1
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!